Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

[hiflier]

Just in case you really think the ones discussion this are ignoring a point (ignorant therefore) going after that :"detail" as you call it might result in one of two things: 1) the PUBLIC by will know the creature exists regardless of whether anyone or any entity is hiding the data/body; and/or 2) it may force an admission of possession by that "anyone" or entity that yes, they have known of its existence and have been studying specimens already- unlikely since it would upset quite a few folks to know that the knowledge had been hidden from the public for reasons I will not bring up here. So derogatory terms like "fallacy" and "ignoring" are words only being used to rank on whoever it is you subjectively want to rank on which brings nothing realistic or constructive to the table.   

Edited October 21, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

As I said:  I don't think it's anywhere near foregone that you, I or anybody will find out if a specimen is killed.  How do we know the government hasn't shot at least one a year?  What happened to the one the guy in Manitoba shot in 1941 (and if there's one thing I will say for any single sighting report, it is that if he didn't kill that one, then all the reports are fake?)  At least one other person claims to have killed one, and no not Justin Smeja, who didn't.  This guy told Grover Krantz that the foot of the animal he killed in western WA was particularly interesting...and went on to describe the precise structure Krantz had theorized would be necessary for a biped that big.

 

If the mainstream gets involved, they have more than enough tools and credibility to establish the animal to the public's satisfaction without taking a specimen.  Although I hate to say  that killing seems inevitable, our species Just Being That Way.

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, DWA said:

If the mainstream gets involved, they have more than enough tools and credibility to establish the animal to the public's satisfaction without taking a specimen.  Although I hate to say  that killing seems inevitable, our species Just Being That Way

 

Sad but probably true. But as far as being inevitable? I still hold out hope for the individuals and teams in the field for finding a remnant sample. I've said it before and I don't hesitate to say it again: Late winter/early spring hold the best time by taking advantage of what nature taking its course may offer us in the way of a deceased individual- elderly or otherwise. A large push at that time of year may far outweigh smaller more frequent group excursions during the 10 alternate months looking for a live one. This is assuming that a weak individual will remain wherever it dropped and was not carried elsewhere- a situation much discussed on the Forum.

Edited October 22, 2016 by hiflier

[guyzonthropus]

Hiflier- I've always thought that a good strategy! Saves on bullets, saves on BF's!!

However, there is validity in the thought that once acknowledged there's gonna being a lot of groups out on the hunt for specimens/trophies. As far as specimens go, it's not going to end with just one, and with trophies, well...that's nearly limitless, and which ever comes first, if one does, it will open the door/floodgates for the rest.

 

That's simply how we hairless dwarves seem to operate....

[hiflier]

True that unregulated there could be abuses. And maybe for that very reason there has been no public announcement on existence. It has occurred to me at times that science's apparent disinterest is fabricated just to help secure the safety of the species. Science for all I know HAS been studying the creatures in the wild already- and for some time. It's one of the several reasons I think about when I say that it doesn't make sense that science doesn't know about them. Again, with today's current technology, Should Sasquatch exist then science must know about them.

 

A far as specimens go? If they are that rare then cloning would be the way to go if several different studies in different conducted need more than one to go around. Sounds cold but then since when has science been all warm and fuzzy in its pursuit of knowledge regarding initial discoveries of new life forms?

 

Another reason the word isn't out is they things like laws, F&S management, and wildlife relocation programs have been slow to implement. These are just a few of the things I've mulled over- should Sasquatch be real. For quite a few here their reality isn't in question. However for others it is. Keeping in the field and looking for the creature may be the best thing to do to place a sense of urgency on getting those laws and some security for the creature in place ASAP.  

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I think science has been studying the species...

In the fossil record at least.

 

With the body proportions you have a Habilis or Australopith.

With the brow ridge you have an Erectus crania.

 

So you have an Australopith that is a common ancestor to Habilis and Erectus and us.

 

Which starting with Habilis leads to us.

 

Shortly before Erectus arose you had the Bigfoot, likely originating somewhere along the Java,  Indonesia, Georgian axis.

 

It does not look like Bigfoot is an ancestor though but related to us via Homo Erectus and not via an Australopith.

 

If science expands the classification you could put Bigfoot in the Habilis or Australopith grouping but not in the Erectus grouping.

 

I think the brow ridge is the key as is is not as pronounced in Australopiths and Habilis but is in Erectus.

 

Just some food for thought.

 

Most telling would be estimating brain volume which not doubt there is a formula for based on skull proportions. A rough estimate cold be generated from the PG footage.

 

More is conjectured from brain size than all the other morphology and taxonomy combined as far as what level of higher primate you are dealing with.

 

This would also be suggestive of behavior and natural history.

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[hiflier]

And I'm saying that the speculating is only something WE do. I'm saying that if this creature exists then its taxonomy is ALREADY known. I'm saying that if this creature exists then some people DO have one and DO know what its lineage is....Now....as in today. I'm saying if this creature exists that there is no way on Earth that it can unknown with the technology that is available just in the area of surveillance and where and how that surveillance is deployed which, truth be known is now EVERYWHERE. This creature simply cannot elude this surveillance network. It is just not possible and hasn't been possible for at least two decades. That's what I'm saying and it's what I'm convinced is true. If this creature exists "they" know about it and "they" have already studied it. It just isn't possible for it to be otherwise.

 

Staying put inside an extremely remote cave and never coming out is the only way it could remain undetected. And that option is simply and logically too unrealistic. In other words, the reasons folks give for why science seemingly turns its face away from the subject don't hold water.

[guyzonthropus]

Unregulated or regulated abuses can and WILL occur. Regulation doesn't mean too much that far out in the wilderness. If people want something badly enough, they'll find a way. Cloning takes too long, is too expensive, and requires access to suitable samples from what would undoubtedly be a highly coveted source specimen.. 

Besides, isn't taking specimens what Special Forces are all about?

[hiflier]

The abuses you speak of may be occurring now. Stuff like that doesn't just begin when regulations get instituted. Although if something is officially or debatably said to not exist then perhaps fewer people will go looking for it? Poaching happens all the time and so maybe worry about the poaching element is a reason to not make a public declaration regarding the creature's existence? What I've been trying to do here is give some logical lines of thinking supporting science's possible knowledge of an extant North American hominid. And then give some positive suggestions for why there's been no announcement.

 

If resource industries have been assassinating the creatures when they are present in the industries' areas of interest then maybe there's some behind the scenes negotiations going on to halt the practice. Since Sasquatch isn't on a watch or endangered species list then there are no regulations against killing them? It would be a catch 22 if DOI turned a blind eye for decades and now does a 180 and says yeah, they exist. In a way any authoritative agency is kind of stuck. Resource industries just may blow the whistle on the DOI by saying the DOI kept silent- sort of an unspoken blackmail situation to keep scientists and the DOI silent on the matter.

 

I just don't see any way NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT SASQUATCH. If that creature is truly in the forest then it has to be known about- even if only in the past 10, 20, or 30 years. I also think Ray Wallace's faked tracks was part of a ploy to get the public to think the creature didn't exist and so get the public on the road to laughing at anyone who believed Sasquatch was real. If Wallace didn't agree to hoax the tracks then the wood industry would have found another Ray Wallace to do it. Do I really believe this? No, I don't. Is it possible for a conspiracy theorist to think so? I would say yes.

 

It's great to have a Forum to discuss this kind of stuff but somewhere I'll bet someone is working out a way to force the truth of existence into the open because they too understand that today's technology won't allow Sasquatch to remain hidden. What is true though is that today's technology cuts both ways- for opponents it says the creature doesn't exist. For proponents it puts the pressure on through logical argument to pry open the door to the truth. In a way proponents can take that argument to science in order to force them to either admit to non-existence or admit to existence. There isn't a possibility for anything in the way of a middle of the road statement. 

 

.

Edited October 23, 2016 by hiflier

[guyzonthropus]

It's none too far a stretch to consider the timber industry keeping things quiet concerning sasquatch. Just look at the spotted owl turmoil and what that did. With a creature that roams the size of habitat BF's do, the impact would be many times greater, perhaps shutting down most logging on public lands, and big lumber just can't have that go down. 

And that doesn't even begin to include mining, natural gas, or residential development.

[hiflier]

Agreed but lets let's pare this down a bit by leaving the resource industries off the table- at least for now. What does it leave? DOI, Forestry Service, Fish and Wildlife, and scientists affiliated with government, the military, and the universities. Maybe the EPA as well. It's still a lot of people. The biggest umbrella would be the military under national defense/Homeland Security. After that the DOI and F&W. I don' mention Bureau of Land Management because they handle leases business partnerships, resource sales and revenue etc so are a large dynamic unto themselves. That leaves the scientists public and private including the professors in the Earth Sciences as well as other ecological niches like plants and animal studies, water resources, and the like.

 

IOW scientists by and large are not the top layer but I think they may be one of the most important. I think mit would boggle the mind to know how much surveillance in the way of visual recorders and audio recorders are really out there simply at the scientific level. F & W use them too along with the Division of Parks and Recreation, state parks etc. and then the private people like hunters, and even campers Granted a lot of the private stuff is not very deep into the wild except for hunters perhaps but still that's hundreds of thousands of different kinds of devices that are deployed if no millions and more and more thermal imagers every year.

 

So where does that leave Sasquatch? Moos?, Elk., and even deer along with mountain lions, wolverines and wolves? The private sector even with all of the devices out there cannot cover everything. One probably cannot or shouldn't approach the military, F & W, and the DOI and ask about Sasquatch. So any arguments regarding surveillance probably can only be presented at the lower scientific levels. But a scientist understands logic. So the argument/dialogue needs to make sense and therefore lead to a conclusion. That conclusion, and it must be definitive or it's just useless opinion, HAS to state whether or not Sasquatch is real. Period. Just being able to have that dialogue with an anthropologist at a university will take a lot of doing. Is the effort worth it? I think that it is. Sensibly it's about the only avenue open to a BF researcher beyond field work.

 

Does this post make sense to anyone?

 

I just published an eBook: The Sasquatch Hunter's Field Manual

 

I'm writing Volume 2 which is covering the quest of discovery by pursuing the vey avenue that I have been describing in this post and the ones previous. It will take the argument to the general public outside of this Forum. Hopefully the future book will grab the interest of students of anthropology and take the question into some anthropology departments around North America- and beyond. The tile is "The Sasquatch Hunter's Field Manuel Vol. 2: The Urban Edition".

Edited October 24, 2016 by hiflier

[guyzonthropus]

I hear what you're saying, and congratulations on the book!

 

But you simply can't just take the resource industries off the table, as they are undoubtedly one of the primary, if not the primary, reasons for any covert suppression of acknowledgement of the one or more species in question.

[hiflier]

Thanks for the congrats. And I hear what you are saying. It's not that I want to take those things off the table. It's more about defining what a private person might be able to do in this climate where corporations now have a same status as an individual. IOW Corporations are now viewed as "people" and so retain the same rights as if a corporation was a person. It means we will get nowhere knocking either on their doors or by whining to politicians about land resource use or management or even who or what lives on those lands. That all falls under the BLM. So it's a dead end. It why digging into a more grass roots approach- young people and universities- may be the only accessible resource available to an individual looking for answers. The dialogue has to tie in to the surveillance capabilities aspect in order to present a logical case to anyone in academia- student or otherwise.

 

And here's the point of it all: As I mentioned before it's all about getting academia to get off of the fence (if they are on one) and point blank say, "Yes, there are Sasquatches" I think there is enough surveillance equipment out there to give us that answer. But there's a problem. A "Yes" may upset the resources industry, and a "No" will wreck the business of keeping the mystery alive but perpetually in limbo for profit.

 

Back to the OP. Of course the answer is yes. But the fallout will be so much greater economically if the result of any investigation gives an unequivocal yes; or an unequivocal no. Looks like limbo wins, yes?

[guyzonthropus]

So who wins with limbo? Yup, the money.....

[hiflier]

Yep, the money. So something for you to think about: Even in the face of "limbo" is it worth pursuing academia with something other than the wimpy, "Does Sasquatch exist"? If the dialogue is mature and logical enough that in order to answer.....well, my friend, into the corner they go- with the only way out being to respond to the dialogue. I would love to see the look on their faces go blank while they think of a reply that is ambiguous in an effort to get off the hook. Tricky little imp ain't I. 

 

BTW, I appreciate you hanging in on this discussion. Hope you don't mind being the only one  

Edited October 25, 2016 by hiflier